July 05, 2007

Engage puts the "F" in academic freedom.....

....and takes it back out again.

See if you can spot the difference between this passage that appeared in a Jon Pike post to the Engage website:
You can accept that it is disproportionate and unjust to punish this group of people, but you can argue that you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs. The proposals that you make are unjust and discriminatory in effect, but that is justified in terms of the deeper and wider goal of making solidarity with the Palestinian people. If you want to argue this - which is the most promising line of argument - could you shut the f*ck up about being unconditionally opposed to unjust discrimination, please?
and this passage in the same post showing the same posting time:
You can accept that it is disproportionate and unjust to punish this group of people, but you can argue that you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs. The proposals that you make are unjust and discriminatory in effect, but that is justified in terms of the deeper and wider goal of making solidarity with the Palestinian people. If you want to argue this - which is the most promising line of argument - could you stop saying that you are unconditionally opposed to unjust discrimination, please? This is because you aren’t.
Clearly a change has been made here but why? The last time I remember this happening was when Dr Hirsh saw fit to use a ludicrous anecdote about his daughter for some political point-scoring but that was in response to complaints in the comments. See the comments to the post above, including this particularly er academic one from "Chaim"
Beautiful.
The future of the zionist project is in their hands. Beautiful!

0 comments:

Post a Comment